The cure for cults that want to deny others

their freedom of speech is more freedom of speech

-- Fredric Rice

Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?

by Joyce Arthur

Article and Drawing Copyright (c) 1996 Skeptic Society

Published in the Skeptic, magazine of the Skeptic Society,
Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93

[The following is a slightly expanded version]

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie
for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out
of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be
against God, he would accept them."

--- Martin Luther

Can the Biblical creation story in Genesis be converted into a
scientific account of the origin of humanity? Is it a fair and
plausible alternative to the theory of evolution? Many people
believe so, and some people work hard to make it so. But can it be
done honestly and with integrity? A look at the "scientific"
creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a
well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation
"science" movement gains much of its [lost] of distortion
and scientifically unethical tactics.

The mandate of the "scientific" creationist movement
is to introduce the Biblical story of creation into public school
science classrooms by disguising it as science. In attempts to
legislate the teaching of creationism during the early 1980's,
"scientific" creationists, referred to hereafter as
creationists, introduced bills in various state legislatures that
called for "equal time" teaching of both creationism and
evolution. These bills, as well as a law that was passed in
"creation science" as follows:

"Creation science includes the scientific evidences and
related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe,
energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds
from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of
originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry
for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by
catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood; and (6) A
relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds" (Edwords
1983).

The Arkansas law, Act 590, which mandated the teaching of
creation science, was overturned in a landmark decision in 1982 by
Judge William Overton. The creation science bill amounted to "a
religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact,"
he said, and "the evidence is overwhelming that both the purpose
and effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public
schools" (Overton 1982). A similar law that was passed in
Louisiana in 1981 was overturned by the U. S. June 19, 1987 on much
the same grounds (Eve and Harrold 1991).

In spite of their legal losses, creationists were steadily making
inroads into public education. The battle was being waged on a
grass-roots level, at school boards and individual schools, by local,
dedicated creationists (Eve and Harrold 1991). In the early 1980's,
some scientists engaged in a counterattack by refuting the arguments
of the creationists on a scientific level. For example, several books
were published which took apart the creationist arguments piece by
piece, and defended the theory of evolution (Eldredge 1982; Futuyma
1983; Kitcher 1984; McGowan 1984). The authors took pains to point
out many scientific errors, omissions, and misunderstandings that led
the creationists to doubt and attack evolution.

With the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared
victory and returned to their labs and offices. But stubbornly, the
creationist movement refused to die. Scientists had misjudged their
opponents because they had assessed the creationist arguments from a
scientific standpoint. Many failed to realize that it is not facts
or theories that drive the creationist machine; it is strong religious
beliefs, and the need to protect traditional lifestyles and values
from the threat of secularism and "godless" evolution.
Because of this, creationists do not use the methods of science to
spread their message. They rely on charisma, religious faith, and
emotional appeals which depict evolution as a destroyer of society
(LaHaye 1974) and evolutionists as materialistic atheists who
conspire to suppress creationism while hiding the many supposed
weaknesses of evolution (Gish 1990a).

In recent years, some scientists have implied or stated that
creationists regularly use distortion and deception when promoting
creationism (Kitcher 1984; Godfrey 1984). For example, Tim Berra,
a zoology professor at Ohio State University has stated: "The
arguments of these fundamentalist missionaries often involve
tortured logic, a stubborn denial of the evidence, a shallow
understanding, or a reckless disregard for the truth" (1990:
125-126). Do creationists knowingly use deception to promote nonsense?
To find out, we will take a close look at a leading spokesperson for
a major creationist center, Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for
Creation Research. Gish's tactics have virtually served as a model
for creationism in general, so examining his methods may shed some
light on this question.

The Institute for Creation Research

The Institute for Creation Research, located in San Diego,
California, has been a leading center for the promotion of creation
science for over 20 years and publishes hundreds of creationist
books, tapes, and teaching aids. It is the group responsible for
the bills introduced and passed in state legislatures.

ICR prohibits academic freedom for its members. Staff at the
Institute are not allowed to espouse anything that might contradict
the basic dogma of the creation science model. To join, each
scientist must sign a pledge professing adherence to several major
tenets. These tenets include the factual and historical integrity
of the Bible and the sudden creation of every living creature
during the six-day Genesis creation week (Nelkin 1982).

Debates - A Creationist Weapon

A favorite method used by ICR and other creationists to promote
creationism is to debate prominent scientists at high schools,
colleges, and universities on the merits of evolution versus creation.
These public debates go a long way toward furthering creationist
ideas. By debating well-known scientists, creationists receive
considerable respect and credibility. Since debates are financed
and heavily promoted by creationists and other Christian groups,
they must be doing it because it helps their cause. Often, most of
the debate audience consists of local church groups who have been
specially bussed in for the occasion. Debates are a poor forum for
imparting the complexities of science and evolution, and a good
forum for delivering the simplistic and often eloquent rhetoric
of creation science. Having a debate implies that creation and
evolution are on equal terms and that the question of which one
is right is an open issue that can be won or lost, and confidently
decided, by a non-scientific audience within one evening (Edwords 1982a).

Duane Gish, Debating King

Duane Gish, Vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research,
is an experienced and eloquent debater in the creationist camp. He
holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and is probably the most influential
and visible creationist in North America. He has lectured and
debated widely on creation versus evolution and is the author of
several books and many articles espousing creationism. Gish's
debate presentations are well-prepared, polished, and very persuasive
to a layperson unfamiliar with science.

I examined many of Gish's published writings, as well as
transcripts and tapes of his debates, and discovered countless
examples of questionable tactics and misleading arguments. The
majority of Gish's arguments I found to be a morass of errors,
omissions, misquotes, old data, distortions, and non sequiturs.
Even worse is my discovery that many scientists have publicly
corrected Gish in his presence, but Gish has gone on to
repeat the same errors in later debates and writings.

This troubling situation arises because Gish's debates are
canned---he repeats more or less the same stories and arguments
against evolution over and over, from place to place, from month
to month, from year to year. The same arguments are even reproduced
in his books and articles. Because of the nature of debates, it's
inevitable that some of Gish's arguments get refuted by various
scientists over time, often more than once. But Gish just goes to
the next debate without ever changing any of his storyline. He
succeeds at this, because in the next city, with a new audience
and a new scientist to debate, who's to know that his argument
got shot down, with evidence, by that other evolutionist last
week?

In his debates, much of Gish's diatribe is directed towards the
fossil record and the alleged lack of transitional forms between
earlier and later forms of life. Gish has admitted that if
transitional forms can be shown to exist, then creationism is dead
(see Debates-Parrish 1991). Creationists, including Gish, are able
to deny the existence of transitional forms because they use their
own home-made definition of the term. For example, Gish claims that
to be intermediate, fossils must be on a direct line of descent with
each other and that transitional creatures would have to possess
half-formed, and therefore useless, body parts (Gish 1985, 1995).
But evolution does not happen that way and the well-known theory
of punctuated equilibrium solves many supposed problems with the
fossil record (Gould and Eldredge 1972).

Not surprisingly, the topic of transitional forms is where Gish
experiences the most problems. The rest of this article documents
instances where Gish, in his debates or writings, has either
ignored public corrections or has appeared to knowingly promote
false information. The first few examples relate directly to his
statements on transitions, including the proposed ape-like
ancestors of modern humans, and it is with these ancestors that
we begin.

A Question of Uprightness

Lucy is a 40% complete skeleton of a three million-year old
Australopithecine (early hominid) discovered in Ethiopia by Donald
Johanson in 1973. Scientists consider Lucy to be strong evidence
for human evolution, because her skeleton shows both ape-like and
human characteristics. She probably walked upright, and is thought
by many to be on the direct evolutionary line to humans.

Lucy is a standard component of Gish's debates. He has been
repeating the same story about her since at least 1981. Gish's
motive is to show that Lucy was not a transitional form between
humans and apes, but just an ape that could not walk upright.
After discussing Lucy briefly, he cites scientist Lord Solly
Zuckerman, who Gish claims did a thorough and careful 15-year
study of the Australopithecines with the conclusion that these
creatures did not walk upright (see Debates-Doolittle 1981,
Park 1982, Thwaites 1988, Parrish 1991; see also Gish 1982). Gish
clearly implies that Zuckerman examined the Lucy skeleton itself.

However, Gish has repeatedly been told in many debates over the
years that this is false (see Debates-Brace 1982, Miller 1982,
Saladin 1988, Thwaites 1988). Zuckerman never saw Lucy, and his
conclusion on Australopithecines was made at least three years
before Lucy was even discovered (Zuckerman 1970). Furthermore,
Zuckerman didn't work with any of the original Australopithecine
fossils. His conclusions were based on a cast of one half of the
pelvis of a single specimen.

In 1982, at a high school in Lion's Head, Ontario, Gish debated
Chris McGowan, a zoologist from the University of Toronto. A member
of the audience, Jay Ingram, (former host of the national Canadian
radio program Quirks and Quarks), heard Gish's Lucy story, which
clearly implied that Zuckerman had studied Lucy herself and
concluded that she, along with other Australopithecines, did
not walk upright. Knowing this was not true, Ingram asked Gish in
the question and answer period why he had misled the audience. A
show of hands indicated that about 90% of the audience had assumed
from what Gish had said that Zuckerman had studied Lucy. Gish became
very upset, lost his temper, and railed that he wasn't responsible
for people misinterpreting his remarks (Ingram 1992).

Gish has never bothered to change his misleading story; in fact,
he went on to increase its inaccuracy. In a 1991 debate with
biologist Fred Parrish, Gish stated outright that Zuckerman had
examined the Lucy skeleton itself: "For 15 years...[Zuckerman]
studied fossils of Lucy and fossils of 1-2 million years younger
than Lucy [sic]" (see Debates-Parrish 1991).

Homo Erectus - A Tangled Web of Contradictions

Homo erectus, a hominid species similar to, but more
primitive than, modern humans was first discovered in Java by Eugene
Dubois in 1891. Further discoveries followed in China beginning in
the 1920's.

Anthropologist C. Loring Brace debated Gish in 1982 and spent a
large part of his debate time detailing the many errors and
distortions in Gish's written treatment of both Dubois' Homo
erectus and the Homo erectus hominid found in Zhoukoudian,
China, nicknamed "Peking Man" (see Debates-Brace 1982; see
also Brace 1986). Brace concluded in the debate that Gish's
presentation on Homo erectus in his book Evolution? The
Fossils Say NO! (1979) was "demonstrably lackin" In part
of this book, Gish tries to prove that Homo erectus is an
ape-like creature unrelated to modern man.

Here are just a few examples from Gish's book that Brace uncovered.
Gish claims that Dubois "concealed the fact that he also
discovered at nearby Wadjak and at approximately the same level
two human skulls with a cranial capacity...somewhat above the
present average." With this remark, Gish was insinuating that
Dubois was hiding evidence that the Homo erectus bones could
not be from a "missing link" between modern humans and
an ape ancestor. However, as Brace pointed out, [lost] these previous
Wadjak finds. They were completely unrelated to his more
recent Homo erectus finds, which, incidentally, were found
100 miles away from Wadjak, not nearby. But Gish's worst error was
exposed when Brace explained that the geologic level where the
bones were found at the Homo erectus site was actually half
a million years old while the level at Wadjak was only 10,000 years
old. That is a far cry from Gish's "approximately the same
level."

In an effort to impugn the integrity of Marcellin Boule, a
scientist who reported on the Homo erectus remains found
in Zhoukoudian, China, Gish claims that there was a significant
difference between Boule's earlier and later descriptions of the
remains. However, Brace noted that the later account was simply a
reprint of the first one, with only minor typographical changes.

Gish suggests that a scientist who worked at Zhoukoudian, Franz
Weidenreich, constructed unreliable and biased models of Peking
Man's skull that differed from earlier descriptions of the bones.
These unreliable models, Gish declares, are the only evidence
available. Brace pointed out that there are photographs of the
original bones, which were lost, and he made it clear that there
was no evidence at all that the models are in any way unreliable.
As Brace stated in the debate, "The supposed difference the
earlier and later accounts of the nature of the material discovered
at Zhoukoudian are simply a fabrication by Dr. Gish designed to
cast doubt on the work of some of the most respected students of
the human fossil record."

Gish published another edition of his book in 1985, expanding
it and retitling it Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil
Record. Every single error pointed out by Brace is repeated,
almost word for word. In addition, Gish has repeated these same
errors in at least one other debate with biologist Karl Fezer of
Concord College, in 1992. In an article (1993) that delves deeply
into Gish's misrepresentations, Fezer states:

"An author concerned about getting his facts right
would certainly, when accused of error by a recognized authority,
seek out the relevant evidence. Yet Gish never asked Brace to cite
his sources... Other scientists have also tried to straighten out
Gish. There is little evidence that Gish modifies what he says to
take this criticism into account. Appearance is everything. Truth
seems not a high priority."

In Gish's latest book, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say
NO! (yet another updated rehash of his previous books), he has
managed to correct only one of his many errors---he has quietly
deleted the claim that the Wadjak skulls were discovered at about
the same level as Dubois' Homo erectus finds (1995, pp. 281).

Gish Monkeys With His Sources

An article by Alex Ritchie (1991) describes how Gish attributed
to a scientist a quote that was never said and while doing so,
plagiarized another writer. After following Gish's trail and
discovering the messy truth behind the misquotation, Ritchie
concluded:

"From 1972-85 Dr. Duane Gish deliberately selected,
published and perpetrated a doctored quotation, plagiarised from
[Patrick] O'Connell (1969). He then attributed it to [Marcellin]
Boule (1937), ...well aware...that it misrepresented the meaning
and intention of Boule's text."

Gish used a source by a creationist and Roman Catholic
priest, Patrick O'Connell, to support his argument that
"Peking" Man, a Homo erectus hominid found in
China, was likely a monkey or ape (1969). O'Connell believed
that the remains of Homo erectus were those of two different
creatures, one an ape, and the other fully human. O'Connell
misquoted Marcellin Boule, the French anthropologist, as saying
that Peking Man had "monkey-like skulls," thereby
projecting his own [lost] views. Gish copied the misquotation word
for word, (1979: pp. 134; see also 1978 edition: pp. 129; 1973
edition: pp. 99) but instead of citing O'Connell, he cited Boule's
original work (1937), which he apparently did not consult. Ritchie
points out in his article that Gish must have been aware of Boule's
actual views on Homo erectus. Boule's book Fossil Men (1957)
was used by Gish as a source and it contradicts what Gish claims are
Boule's views. Boule actually concluded that Homo erectus was
not an ape, but a transitional form between humans and apes.

Gish Impaled on the Horns of a Dilemma

In Gish's book, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards (1991
and earlier editions), he claims that Triceratops, a late Cretaceous
horned dinosaur, appeared in the fossil record without a trace of
any ancestor. Frederick Edwords, in a 1982 debate (see Debates-Edwords)
confronted Gish with contrary evidence to his assertion. Gish replied
that Triceratops' supposed ancestors are found in the same strata as
Triceratops, so they couldn't be part of an evolutionary
sequence (Edwords 1982b). This is incorrect, since the ancestors
Edwords mentioned are actually found in geologic strata spanning
10-45 million years before Triceratops (Edwords 1982b). On March
20, two months later, Kenneth Miller had a chance to reprove Gish
during a Tampa, Florida debate at Jefferson High School. Miller
described and showed several transitional forms of dinosaurs leading
up to Triceratops, including Monoclonius with its two incipient
horns. When Gish objected that the animals occurred too close
together in time for one to be ancestral to another, Miller countered
by pointing out that they had at least 15 million years to evolve.
He then handed Gish some textbook material on Monoclonius that
confirmed this, advising him to study it before his next debate
(Edwords 1982a). Nevertheless, only 11 days later, in a debate
with Michael Alan Park (see Debates-Park 1982), Gish repeated his
assertion that Triceratops appears "suddenly in the fossil
record, with no transitional forms."

To this day, in spite of additional oral and written rebuttals
by scientists over the years, Gish continues to claim during debates
and lectures that Triceratops has no transitional ancestors and
that proposed ancestors do not occur early enough in the fossil
record. (Debates: Shermer, 1995; also see Gish, 1994). This falsehood
is also repeated in several subsequent books (1985, 1990a, 1995).

Those D'Amphibious Reptiles

David Milne (Evergreen State College), has suggested that Gish
may have been guilty of misrepresentation in his use of a figure
that appeared in George Gaylord Simpson's book Life of the
Past (1953). Simpson's book shows a group of fish, amphibians,
and reptiles with arrows depicting descent of the various classes
that the animals belonged to---not of the specific species shown
as examples, as Simpson clearly explains in the caption. Gish,
without citing Simpson's book as the source, lifted two of the animals
from the figure and printed them in his 1972 edition of Evolution?
The Fossils Say NO!, falsely stating that one species was a
supposed ancestor of the other. In addition, he mislabelled one of
them as the primitive amphibian Ichthyostega, when in fact, the
animal actually shown was another, more modern looking amphibian
called Eryops (and so labeled in Simpson's book). Both animals are
amphibians, but the earlier Ichthyostega [lost] obvious transitional
features, such as vestigial fins. Milne suggested that Gish didn't
want to portray Ichthyostega simply because it looked too fish-like
(Milne 1981).

Bombardier Beetle Explodes in Gish's Face

The Bombardier beetle is a fascinating insect which defends itself
from attackers by ejecting a boiling hot chemical substance from its
rear. Gish claims that it is impossible for this beetle to slowly
evolve its mechanism, as a partially evolved system would be either
useless or dangerous.

Evolutionists do not think that the Bombardier beetle's evolution
is a mystery. The beetle is a member of the family Carabidae and most
species in this family have glands which secrete a noxious fluid used
for defense. The Bombardier beetle's mechanism is simply more highly
developed than that of other related beetles, and this development
is perfectly explicable in terms of natural selection. Gish is aware
of this information because he sent me a copy of an article which
described it (Weber 1981b). In a letter accompanying the article
(1990b), he stated, "I have challenged evolutionists time and
time again to explain how the Bombardier Beetle could have evolved
from an ordinary beetle through a series of genetic mistakes. ... I
would be greatly indebted to you if you could provide such an
explanation." Gish continues to complain that evolutionists
are completely silent on how this beetle could have evolved (1993).
He unreasonably demands a detailed step-by-step account, but whenever
scientists [lost] evolutionary scenarios for particular animals, Gish
dismisses them as tall tales with no scientific merit (1993: pp. 216).

Gish also made a serious factual error in his public recitations of
the Bombardier beetle story and stubbornly refused to correct it for
years afterward. He used to claim that the beetle's noxious substance,
consisting of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone, was explosive
without the presence of an "inhibitor." To effect the
explosion, Gish said, the beetle had to add an "anti-inhibitor"
to the mixture (Gish 1980).

To test Gish's claim, in 1978 William M. Thwaites and Frank T.
Awbrey, of San Diego State University, mixed the two chemicals
together in a classroom (Weber 1981a). There was no explosion. The
mixture simply turned brown. When confronted with these results,
Gish claimed that his error was a result of a mistranslation by
another creationist (Kofahl 1981) of an article in German by Hermann
Schildknecht (1968). Gish admitted that the two chemicals, when
combined, do not spontaneously explode, and that no information on
inhibitors or anti-inhibitors was provided by Schildknecht. Thwaites
and Awbrey told me (1991):

"We demolished his bombardier beetle argument in a way
that should have humiliated a biochemist. After we had corrected
him several times, he merely added 'or decompose' after his claim
that the chemicals in the beetle's ancestor would explode. By his
logic, that fixed everything."

Gish continued to use his original Bombardier beetle story
for several years in subsequent debates and lectures (Weber 1981a,
see also Debates-Patterson 1980) and the children's book in which
he told his Bombardier beetle tale, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible
Lizards, was reprinted without correction in 1980. Despite this
obvious contrary evidence, in his new book, Creation Scientists
Answer Their Critics (1993), Gish claims that he did not repeat
the error in his debates and lectures and that his children's book
was corrected at the very next reprinting. He also describes the
flaw in his argument as a "little hitch."

David Milne notes that to his knowledge, Gish's correction of
his Bombardier beetle error, albeit late, is the only one that
Gish has ever adopted in response to criticisms from scientists.
Milne, who has debated Gish, thinks that the reason Gish finally
changed it was because scientists confronted him with it so often
that it became too embarrassing for him to continue using it (1991).

Have You Been Brainwashed, Dr. Gish?

Gish has a little comic-style booklet published under his name
called Have You Been Brainwashed? (1986). First printed in
1974, the booklet was advertised and sold until 1992. It pictures
Gish lecturing to a university audience on the shortcomings of
evolution, and is adapted from an actual lecture that he gave. In
a 1988 debate in Australia, geologist Ian Plimer exposed many
errors and fallacies contained in this booklet, concluding that
it contained "a lie every 11 words!" (see Debates 88; see
also Price 1990). Gish excused the booklet on the grounds that it had
been written 17 years ago and was scientifically accurate at the
time. Plimer informed the audience that in spite of its admitted
inaccuracies, the booklet was for sale outside the lecture hall.

When challenged previously on the veracity of this booklet, at
a 1982 lecture in Berkeley, Gish brazenly stated that someone else
had written it (Gish 1982, Jukes 1984). However, in his
book Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (1993), Gish
owns up by calling the booklet "my little pamphlet" (pp.
124). He says nothing about its inaccuracies, although he refers to
his book Evolution? The Fossils Say NO! as "more
authoritative" (pp. 124).

Gish Rebuilds His Hollow Column

Gish likes to argue that the dating of the geologic column, or
strata, is based on a circular argument. He states in his book
Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985) that
the arrangement of the geological column is "based on the
assumption of evolution" (pp. 47) and that the dating of fossils
is based on a false assumption because fossils in rocks are used to
date rocks, but at the same time, rocks are used to date fossils.
These claims are faithfully repeated in his recent evolution: The
Fossils Still Say NO! (1995).

However, 18th century creationist geologists had worked out the
major components of the geologic column over 50 years before
evolution was accepted. They organized strata by type of rock
and observed that certain fossils were found only in particular
strata (stratigraphy). This succession of fossil types was thought
to reflect different time periods separated by cataclysms and new
creations. Today, dating of the geologic column is supplemented by
independent radiometric dating methods (Kitcher 1984).

At a public forum at the University of Toronto in 1982, Gish
admitted that his argument was not true. Chris McGowan, a zoology
professor, elicited a confession from Gish. In his book, In the
Beginning... (1984), McGowan describes and refutes the
creationist view that the geological column is based on the
assumption of evolution. He then says, "To be fair, though, I
must point out that during a recent public forum Dr. Gish did
concede the error when I confronted him with a geological map
published in 1795" (pp. 99-100).

Unfortunately, Gish's Challenge book was published in 1985,
three years after he admitted in public that his argument about the
geologic column was in error.

Gish Revises Physics - Nobel Prize Winner Wrong

Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel prize in 1977 for his work on the
thermodynamics of nonequilibrium systems. He wrote a related article
in 1972 explaining how nonequilibrium thermodynamics solves the
puzzle of how life can originate and increase its state of order in
spite of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Prigogine 1972).
Simply put, the Second Law states that in a closed system,
"useful" energy that can do work becomes gradually converted
over time to energy that is unavailable for entropy, or an increase of
disorder. Creationists interpret this to mean that complex living
systems could not have evolved from simpler forms because overall,
things run down rather than build up. However, living things are
open systems and as Prigogine emphasized, are far from a state of
equilibrium. They acquire energy from the sun and can locally
decrease entropy and even increase their order and complexity without
a violation of the Second Law.

In a debate with George Bakken (see Debates-Bakken 1987), Gish
pretended ignorance of Prigogine's basic thesis and instead claimed
that Prigogine said the origin of life was virtually impossible
because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Bakken 1991). Prigogine's
words were taken from the beginning of his article (1972) where he
summarized the position that he was about to spend the next several
pages refuting. Perhaps Gish only read the first page. However, he
definitely knew before that debate what Prigogine really said. In a
1982 debate, Gish was told about Prigogine's article by his opponent,
C. Loring Brace, who described it as "an unassailable
refutation of Gish's claims" (see Debates-Brace 1982).

In Gish's book Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics
(1993), he changes tactics by strongly implying that Prigogine is
not competent to theorize on the origin of life. After casting
aspersions on Prigogine's scientific method by claiming that he
"hasn't spent any time in the laboratory in years," Gish
says:

"Prigogine's theoretical ideas are buttressed with a
large amount of complicated mathematics which few biochemists and
molecular biologists can understand, but it all does look
deliciously scientific. Since Prigogine's speculations lend comfort
to his fellow evolutionists among the biochemists and molecular
biologists, they are only too eager to bow to the authority of
this Nobel Prize winner." (pp. 186-187)

A logical inference from this statement is that Gish, a
biochemist who has not spent any time in the laboratory in years,
likely does not understand Prigogine's mathematics himself.
Unwilling to admit this, he imputes his lack of understanding to
other scientists and concludes that they are paying blind
obeisance to a Nobel prize winner.

Gish's Amazing Story of Evolution

Besides his debating techniques and ignored public corrections,
there is a disturbing omission by Gish that should be revealed. Gish
has written a book for young people called The Amazing Story of
Creation From Science and the Bible (1990a), in which he seriously
misrepresents the theory of evolution. Not once in the book does he
mention natural selection by name, the most important mechanism of
evolution. By generally downplaying and ignoring the role of natural
selection, Gish makes evolution seem absurd. He represents it as
occurring entirely by chance and mutations: "Mutation is the
commonly accepted mechanism required, by evolution, to change the
first form of life into all other living creatures" (pp. 43).

But without natural selection, there is no hope of understanding
evolution. Natural selection dictates that individuals with traits
and variations better suited to the environment are more likely to
survive than others who are less well-suited. Because they compete
more successfully for mates and limited resources, and live longer,
the fitter individuals leave more offspring, and their favorable
traits are passed on to succeeding generations. The traits spread
through the population, and eventually, perhaps, cause it to evolve
into a new species.

Gish is an active anti-evolutionist who knows very well what the
basic tenets of evolutionary theory are. He has a responsibility to
at least present the other side fairly, but instead, he has has
distorted and effectively concealed the cornerstone of the theory
of evolution from his young, trusting readers.

Conclusion

Gish seems to be guilty of systematic distortion and
misrepresentation. When his errors are publicly corrected, he tends
to continue their repetition. Why does Gish do this? Obviously, his
actions promote the cause of creationism. Most of the people in
debate audiences only hear Gish once and leave with a favorable
impression of his arguments. Few people would have the patience
to follow Gish around on his debate tours and catch him at his
tricks. The rare occasions when he's been caught red-handed are more
than compensated by the many times he's gotten away with it.

According to the book, The Creationist Movement in Modern
America, the psychology of creationists is very different from
that of evolutionists (Eve and Harrold 1991). The authors say that
creationists tend to perceive the world through the filter of their
religious beliefs, and they differ from their opponents in
"their most profound understandings of reality, religion,
American society, and the nature of the scientific enterprise"
(pp. 67).

In light of that perspective, it is not surprising that some people
who have met or debated Gish have come to the conclusion that he is
not knowingly dishonest. For example, Robert Schadewald (1991), a
freelance science writer who has followed the antics of Gish, states:

"I used to be convinced that Gish was a conscious liar,
because so many of the things he says are demonstrably false, and
he is neither stupid nor uneducated. In the last few years, I have
changed my mind. I now think that Gish is so severely deluded that
he can no longer distinguish what he wants to believe from reality,
at least on a conscious level."

William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey (1991) state:

"We...were convinced at first that he must be a
deliberate liar, but now we have concluded that he is not. ...Gish
says only what supports his belief. In his mind, that cannot
possibly be a lie. ... We also think that sometimes he says what
he wishes were true. If he wishes he hadn't said something, then
he didn't say it." [italics in original]

David Milne (1991) states:

"[Gish] says things that are false, now, but I suspect
that he no longer even realizes it, or cares. ... He may have known,
at one time, that there was something shaky or even devious about
his claims, but he's made them so long now, that they have taken on
a truth of their own for him."

A lack of integrity, whether deliberate or not, usually
damages one's reputation, but instead, Gish's tactics have helped
enhance the credibility of the Institute for Creation Research,
and probably that of the entire creationist movement. Teachers and
scientists struggling with the threat of creationism need to be
fully aware of the exact methods used by one of the most popular
advocates of creationism. A campaign based on errors and distortions
does not require respect, or the time and effort spent in fighting
it. If tactics such as Gish's become common knowledge, we can
perhaps begin to close the creationist chapter and get back to
the work of real science.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Bob Camfield, David Milne, Thomas
Jukes, and Geoffrey Scudder for helpful comments and editing, and
especially to Stephen Arthur for his editing, advice, encouragement,
and support.

Joyce Arthur is a technical writer and editor, as well as a
part-time freelance writer of both fiction and non-fiction. She has
followed the creation/evolution controversy for many years. She
lives in Vancouver, B.C.

Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this
criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to
U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author
or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of
the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may
not be those of the Chairman of The Organized Crime Civilian Response®.

This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in
any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the
authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way
connected with any creationist cult.